| Advertisements |
|
|
|
Post subject: Do gays sometimes vote as a bloc*
 Posted: Aug 01, 2007 - 03:42 AM
|
|
Joined: Sep 06, 2006
Posts: 1195
Location: Valhalla Mountains, British Columbia, Canada
|
|
* (French spelling)
Study Probes Role Of Gay Vote In Election
Quote:
(Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) A new study suggests that gay and lesbian voters voted as a block in the recent mayoral primary election in Philadelphia and that gay and lesbian voters were markedly more likely to support their candidate than their neighbors.
|
_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Do gays sometimes vote as a bloc*
Posted: Aug 01, 2007 - 05:37 AM
|
|
Joined: Sep 06, 2006
Posts: 1754
|
|
Huh. Go figure. The guy heavily campaigns for the Gay vote and gets it, and moreover wins a five-way primary because of it. I'd have to see a bit of data on just what the other four candidate's positions on Gay issues were, but I strongly suspect that this was a case of a majority of Gays voting in what was clearly their best interests.
You'll note that the 74% of the Gay vote that Nutter received echoes nicely the proportion of the Gay vote that the Democrats received in the last two presidential elections.
I wouldn't call this voting "en bloc" unless it can be demonstrated that among the other four candidates there were acceptable (from a purely Gay viewpoint) candidates. I strongly suspect there were not. Consider, if you will, the behavior of Gays and Lesbians when assembled in parade organizing committees or advisory panels or nascent nationalism movements... we are a fractious, opinionated, and strong-willed people. We do not do things 'en bloc' for the sake of imitating sheep -- we do so when it is the obvious course of action (rather like the decision to breathe in again after having breathed out... not a lot of debate takes place on that issue). |
_________________
"If you want the freedom, the abilities, you have to find a way. Just don't be so passive. We are capable of so much more." -- Larry Kramer
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Do gays sometimes vote as a bloc*
Posted: Aug 01, 2007 - 09:42 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 12, 2007
Posts: 472
Location: NYC
|
|
| I don't believe we vote as a bloc so much as we vote in our best political interest. Usually that interest is best defined politically as "choosing the lesser of two or more evils". |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 01, 2007 - 11:37 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 22, 2007
Posts: 290
Location: USA
|
|
| When you have 75% of a group voting a certain way, that's a bloc. |
_________________
"That buzzing-noise means something. You don't get a buzzing-noise like that, just buzzing and buzzing, without its meaning something."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 02, 2007 - 12:48 AM
|
|
Joined: Apr 12, 2007
Posts: 472
Location: NYC
|
|
Ahh...not necessarily, Kyle...we've had elections here for city council where we had to choose between two candidates that tore the "bloc" to pieces. Usually both are openly gay, one is a democrat endorsed by the Democratic Party machine, the other runs as either an independent, Working Families Party, the Liberal line, or a combination of several of these. Then the so-called "gay bloc" in NY falls apart.
It's almost always a bloc when the candidates are the traditional democrat versus republican choices. Those are no-brainers and you see the "lesser of two evils" bloc materialize. But when you have several progressive AND openly gay candidates, the mudslinging starts. Then we start nit-picking...we get very parochial and very personal about the issues and a run-off election may be necessary to settle the matter. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 02, 2007 - 01:13 AM
|
|
Joined: Apr 12, 2007
Posts: 472
Location: NYC
|
|
Personally, I think that election in Philly was viewed by that city's LGBT community as a way to bring about needed change in the city's political culture. Change that would benefit the city's LGBT community. In essence, they weren't so much casting their votes for the candidate but for what the candidate represented.
It reminds me of an earlier election in Greenwich Village in the 1960s. Not that I was even born back then...but it was something I studied (if interested read "Governing the Ungovernable City" by Barbara Ferman). That was the election that brought Edward Koch to power for the first time as a city councilman in 1966 when his Independent Village Democrats effectively eliminated the political stranglehold that Italian-Americans and the Democratic Party's machine had traditionally excercised over the Village. In essence, the growing non-Italian population, mostly gay men, voted for change. They also voted to strike a death-blow to machine politics as New York had known it. I get the sense from reading that article that the vote in Philly was more about that than any desire to legitimize or consolidate power...the traditional rationale behind voting blocs. |
_________________
Each of us inevitable; Each of us limitless - each of us with his or her right upon the earth; Each of us allowed the eternal purports of the earth; Each of us here as divinely as any is here. ~ Walt Whitman
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 02, 2007 - 02:33 AM
|
|
Joined: Apr 12, 2007
Posts: 472
Location: NYC
|
|
| Correction of previous post: Village Independent Democrats, celebrating 50 years battling for progressive causes...I've been scolded by one of their members for getting the name wrong. LOL. |
_________________
Each of us inevitable; Each of us limitless - each of us with his or her right upon the earth; Each of us allowed the eternal purports of the earth; Each of us here as divinely as any is here. ~ Walt Whitman
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 02, 2007 - 05:49 AM
|
|
Joined: Sep 06, 2006
Posts: 1754
|
|
|
Kyleovision wrote:
When you have 75% of a group voting a certain way, that's a bloc.
This is generally true, and it has been said for many years that Gays vote en bloc. In ways, it's hardly Earth-shaking news that some analysis or another has turned up evidence of it.
Still, I question the reasonableness of saying that, just because the Gays gave every appearance of voting en bloc in Philadelphia's recent primary, that they habitually vote en bloc.
In a number of areas, this supposed tendency to vote en bloc breaks down spectacularly -- enough to suggest that there is no real tendency. |
_________________
"If you want the freedom, the abilities, you have to find a way. Just don't be so passive. We are capable of so much more." -- Larry Kramer
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 02, 2007 - 08:20 AM
|
|
Joined: Apr 12, 2007
Posts: 472
Location: NYC
|
|
|
Feral wrote:
Still, I question the reasonableness of saying that, just because the Gays gave every appearance of voting en bloc in Philadelphia's recent primary, that they habitually vote en bloc.
In a number of areas, this supposed tendency to vote en bloc breaks down spectacularly -- enough to suggest that there is no real tendency.
Very true. Especially in light of the fact that this Mr. Nutter was by all accounts seen as an "outsider". To quote a famous headline from the Stonewall Riots era...the queen bees were stinging mad. They were motivated to vote for anything other than the status quo this time and went with someone who represented change.
I also question the use of the term "en bloc" when the vote breakdown doesn't seem to suggest that at all. It looks like Mr. Nutter won by a plurality of the votes in a highly contested race. It just so happened that this time, those precincts with a large number of gay registered voters chose to go with someone new. Quite possibly because that someone understood the nature of the election and that courting any significant segment would put him over the top. He could have easily courted the African-American community in Germantown or the Latino community in North Philly and achieved the same or better results. As an astute "outsider", Mr. Nutter zeroed in on the segment that he felt was being ignored and pulled off an electoral victory via a plurality of the votes.
36.6% citywide and a 17% preponderance in largely gay districts is not enough of a mandate to merit calling the gay community's showing an electoral "bloc". What's operating here is something different and deeper--that quite possibly for the first time in Philadelphia local elections, the gay community was actively courted and it actively rewarded that effort with a squeaker of a victory in a tight race. This is a heads up for local pols in Philly. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 02, 2007 - 07:41 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 22, 2007
Posts: 290
Location: USA
|
|
We were in Chicago way back when, for the Mayor's race between Harold Washington (a black guy) and Ed Vrydolyak (what Chicagoans call a 'white ethnic'). Both were Dems; nobody but Dems ever wins in Chi-town.
Chicago was (probably still is) polarized according to race, and the numbers were as close to 50-50 as you could get.
It was said that the gay vote was crucial, even though it was a tiny percentage.
That year, Washington came to the Pride parade; Vrydolyak didn't.
Washington won... by a plurality that was almost identical to the size of the gay vote.
That's a bloc. |
_________________
"That buzzing-noise means something. You don't get a buzzing-noise like that, just buzzing and buzzing, without its meaning something."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 02, 2007 - 07:45 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 12, 2007
Posts: 472
Location: NYC
|
|
Well, blocs have to keep manifesting themselves at the ballot box in order to be considered such. Otherwise, one election is tantamount to a political aberration. There was no mention in this article as to whether or not the gay community in Philly has ever swayed an election before through sheer numbers at the ballot box.
I would consider the Philadelphia gay community a constituency at best. Part of the tone of that article was the surprise factor. I don't think anyone expected that the gay vote in Philly, small as it is, would be enough to sway an election. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ •
Search •
Register •
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
• 
Sub-Forum
